Opinion
No. 39549
Decided February 16, 1966.
Taxation — Hospital — Institution used exclusively for charitable purposes — Residence quarters furnished without charge — To director of nursing — Interns, members of hospital staff — Graduate nurses — Administrative director — Sleeping quarter for employees on 24-hour call — Private use, not exempt from taxation.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Appellant, a private nonprofit corporation, operates a large general hospital for the benefit of the public, known as The Jewish Hospital, in the city of Cincinnati. It is without question an "institution used exclusively for charitable purposes" and is the owner of a large block of real estate of which most of the separate parcels are exempt from taxation and contain hospital buildings, student-nurses homes and parking lots.
In June 1964, the hospital sought tax exemption for two additional parcels in that block for the year 1964 and remission of taxes for prior years.
The parcel known as 3220 Burnet Avenue contains a two-story eight-room residence structure and has been owned by the hospital since 1928. The record gives no indication of its specific use prior to 1961, and taxes thereon were paid through 1960. From January 1961 to August 1963, the director of nursing of the hospital, his wife, five children and mother-in-law occupied the premises as a family home, rent-free and as partial compensation.
Some time thereafter and as late as March 11, 1964, the building was occupied by three or four unmarried medical residents and interns who were members of the hospital staff. The record is unclear as to whether any of these employees made their principal residence or domicile in these premises. At a later but indefinite time, the property was devoted to a sleeping facility for employees of the laboratory, surgery and X-ray departments who were on 24-hour "on-call" duty and was being used for this purpose at the end of 1964.
The second parcel at 413 Ridgeway Avenue was acquired in 1953 and contained a two-story six-room residence structure. Until 1960, it was occupied as a family residence by one of the administrative directors of the hospital and was on the taxable list. From January 1, 1960, to August 1963, the building was used as a private residence for graduate nurses employed by the hospital for which they paid $25 per month to defray the cost of furnishings and utility services. From August 1963 to August 1964, the premises served as a private residence for the family of the new director of nurses on a temporary basis until new quarters could be found and for which no rent was charged. For the remainder of 1964, they were used for storage facilities for the Institute of Research, a part of the hospital.
Appellant contended that to assist in recruiting graduate-nurse employees it is necessary to provide a convenient protected residential area close to the hospital. As to use by the director of nursing, appellant contended that it is necessary and customary that inducements in the form of living facilities be offered to attract competent personnel for the operation of a hospital.
The Board of Tax Appeals disallowed the claim for exemption and appellant prosecuted its appeal to this court.
Messrs. Paxton Seasongood and Mr. Simon Lazarus, Jr., for appellant.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Thomas J. Moyer, Mr. Jon A. Ziegler, Mr. Melvin G. Rueger, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Robert W. Warth, for appellees.
The record herein does not indicate whether the director of nursing, residents, interns or graudate-nurse employees were required to be in or near the hospital so as to be available on a 24-hour basis or whether any of those employees were, outside of duty hours, required to participate in any of the educational, research, teaching or patient-care programs of the hospital.
Except for the director of nursing, there is nothing to indicate whether the use of the facilities was primarily for residence or for temporary sleeping purposes.
As to the use of the one parcel as sleeping facilities for on-call employees of the laboratory, surgery and X-ray departments, the record fails to show whether this was the principal use of the property for a substantial portion of the year in question, namely, 1964.
On the whole, therefore, there is nothing in the record which removes this case from the rule that the use of property for residence purposes necessarily is a private use of the premises and not a use exclusively for charitable purposes. Doctors Hospital v. Board of Tax Appeals, 173 Ohio St. 283.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in denying tax exemption is neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and, accordingly, that decision is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, HERBERT and BROWN, JJ., concur.
TAFT, C.J., O'NEILL and SCHNEIDER, JJ., dissent.
I have attempted to show in my dissenting opinion in Philada Home Fund v. Board of Tax Appeals, 5 Ohio St.2d 135, at page 140, that neither the Constitution of Ohio nor the legislative enactments pursuant thereto require that the property here involved be used for charitable purposes to the exclusion of all other uses, so as to qualify it for tax exemption, unless Article I of the Constitution of Ohio is transgressed.
The constitutional question has not been raised by the appellees, and it is clear that the use of the property is not such as would support a conclusion that it is in competition with other dwelling units in the mainstream of the real estate market.
TAFT, C.J., and O'NEILL, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.